Psychological Obstacles to the Formation of Loyalty of Employees of the Penitentiary System to Professional-Service Groups

The article examines the factors that prevent the formation of loyalty of employees of penitentiary system to professional-service groups of their affiliation. The position is argued that alongside with absence of factors of formation of loyalty, there are specific socially-psychological obstacles for formation of loyalty to professional-service groups. Such obstacles were identified based on the analysis of empirical data (N=2786, respondents — men and the women engaging various positions in establishments and territorial units of Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia of 76 subjects of the Russian Federation; methods - The «Method of color metaphors», the questionnaire «Subjective assessment of integration»). In relation to large formal groups (like ministry) such an obstacle is the lack of experience of joint activities and emotional experiences in the group. At the level of large contact groups (organizations), the most significant factors preventing loyalty are the lack of exclusivity and value of the group, obvious differences in the normative and value orientations of their members. The main factor hindering loyalty to small contact groups in the professional and service sphere is the ignoring or rejection of a member of the group by its other members.

1. Bobrus O.N. Sovremennye podkhody k izucheniyu korporativnoi loyal’nosti personala. Uchenye zapiski Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial’nogo universiteta = Scientific Notes of Russian State Social University, 2009, no. 9, pp. 117–120. (In Russ.).
2. Boikina E.E. Metodicheskie priemy simulyatsii situatsii sotsial’nogo ostrakizma O`Cam, O`Train, Cyberball: opyt pilotazhnykh issledovanii v Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Social Ostracism Paradigms O’Cam, O’Train, Cyberball: the Experience of Pilot Research (Russian Federation)] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 189–206. doi:10.17759/sps.2021120411 (In Russ.).
3. Gornostaev S.V. Metodika tsvetovykh metafor kak sredstvo diagnostiki sluzhebnoi loyal’nosti [Colour Metaphors Method as the Means of Diagnosing Officer’s Loyalty] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhopedagogika v pravookhranitel’nykh organakh = Psychopedagogy in Law Enforcement, 2017, no. 3 (70), pp. 67–72. doi:10.24411/1999-6241-2017-13013 (In Russ.).
4. Gornostaev S.V., Zhil’nikov T.A. Empiricheskay a struktura individual’noi reprezentatsii loyal’nosti [A study on the relationship of resilience with the level of suicidal risk among remand prisoners held in custody]. Prikladnaya yuridicheskaya psikhologiya = Applied Legal Psychology, 2017, no. 3, pp. 33–40. (In Russ.).
5. Magomaeva E.R., Kazikhanova A.I. Loyal’nost’ personala i ee faktory formirovaniya [Staff loyalty and i’ts formation factors] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Ekonomika i predprinimatel’stvo = Journal of Economy and entrepreneurship, 2020, no. 6 (119), pp. 919–921. doi:10.34925/EIP.2020.119.6.194 (In Russ.).
6. Maximenko V.A. Faktory, vliyayushchie na uroven’ loyal’nosti personala v vuze [Factors affecting the level of staff loyalty at the university]. Finansovye rynki i banki = FInancial Markets and Banks, 2021, no. 2, pp. 20–25. (In Russ.).
7. Mishin A.A. Vzaimosvyaz’ psikhologicheskogo klimata v sluzhebnom kollektive s effektivnost’yu sluzhebnoi deyatel’nosti [The relationship of the psychological climate in the labor team with the effectiveness of official activity] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Prikladnaya yuridicheskaya psikhologiya = Applied Legal Psychology, 2021, no. 3 (56), pp. 71–75. doi:10.33463/2072-8336.2021.3(56).071-075 (In Russ.).
8. Sarsenova A.A. Kontseptual’nye podkhody k opredeleniyu fenomena sluzhebnoi loyal’nosti [Conceptual approaches to defining the phenomenon of service loyalty] [Elektronnyi resurs] // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2021, no. 3, pp. 349–354. doi:10.24412/2073-0454-2021-3-349-354 (In Russ.).
9. Spesivtseva S.E., Demenenko I.A. Strategiya formirovaniya organizatsionnoi loyal’nosti personala [Strategy of formation of organizational loyalty of the personnel]. Menedzhment v Rossii i za rubezhom = Management in Russia and Abroad, 2020, no. 1, pp. 81–88. (In Russ.).
10. Fedotov A.Yu. Psikhologicheskie usloviya povysheniya nadezhnosti professional’no-ispolnitel’skikh deistvii spetsialista silovykh struktur [Psychological Conditions for Increasing Reliability of Professional Actions of a Law Enforcement Specialist] [Elektronnyi resurs] // Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, 2020. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 201–211. doi:10.17759/psylaw.2020100215 (In Russ.).
11. Adler P. Role conflict and identity salience: College athletics and the academic role. Social Science Journal, 1987. Vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 443–455. doi:10.1016/0362-3319(87)90059-0
12. De Graaf G. The Loyalties of Top Public Administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2001. Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 285–306. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq028
13. Grodzins M. The loyal and the disloyal: social boundaries of patriotism and treason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. 319 p.
14. James W. A Pluralistic Universe. New York [etc.]: Longmans, Green, and co., 1909. 405 p.
15. Kasiński M. Lojalność urzędnika w świetle prawa i etyki. Etyka w życiu gospodarczym, 2010. Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 139–146.
16. Maynard-Moody S., Musheno M. Cops, Teachers, Counselors. Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Michigan: University of Michigan, 2003. 221 p.
17. Mentzelopoulos A.M. Federal Government Public Service Ethics: Managing Public Expectations. Carleton University, 1990. 159 p.
18. Twijnstra A., De Graaf G. Young Loyalties: Loyalty Conceptions and Loyalty Conflicts of Young Dutch and English Public Administrators. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 2013. Vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 73–92. doi:10.15133/J.OS.2012.005